Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow, someone else who shares my opinion. We are indeed an arrogant species if we think we can possibly affect mother nature more than mother nature herself. It's like trying to stop a freight train with a BB-gun... Not too mention as vulcan so eloquently put it, we don't know jack about what's going on. The theories of this and that change every week....

Cobber, you keep saying its been disproven but the graph is still up there proving otherwise.

I trust real scientists but 'environmental scientists' are more like chiropractors. Mine made my back feel a mite better, but he believes everything from lung cancer to toothaches is the result of some spinal condition.

The -1 poster made a very important observation. This is just a single data point. Using a single data point is the "junk science" you talk about, and get moderated to +5 by people who presumably haven't even heard of the scientific method.

I really do not understand the massive anti-global-climate-change agenda and popularist following that manifests itself on sites like this. I fear it only comes about from poor media reporting, and one-sided websites that only present one side of the story (as Michael Asher's blog posts do).

As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically. Pretty much every anti-global-warming argument was debunked.

Or maybe it is fear of the unknown, or fear of change, that drives people to put their faith in the status-quo "let's not change our lifestyles" group.

The global climate is a very complex thing, and changes in one region may not apply to other regions. Global warming MAY cause a decrease in temperatures as well due to a change in weather patterns.

As an example of this, when the South Pacific Ocean waters are either warmer or colder, it tends to cause increased bad weather out on the west coast of the USA. The bad weather has side effects considering that the semi-arid climate in many areas gets more rain than "normal" as well. Some would call this a good thing, but it is climate change if the waters from year to year stay warmer than the "average". With more cloud cover/rain, it will cause a slight temperature decrease in some areas, which over time will shift the climate a bit more, and cause a larger change to the climates as what was a semi-arid climate(with the surrounding areas being balanced around that).

This idea that climate changes in one area can cause a spreading change to surrounding areas is a very large concern. The growth of desert areas is a part of this(though not necessarily connected to global warming), where irrigation and the planting of trees and work can stop and even reverse this trend.

So, the single data point in this context was the sea ice. This does not cover the various glacial ice masses around the world that are not in the arctic. It also does not cover the total amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. The total amount of ice in the polar regions can drop significantly, even if the sea ice level goes up.

From the same perspective, while there are some parts of the USA where temperatures have been colder for the past few winters, other parts of the country have seen fewer cold days(below 32F), and fewer massive snow storms. A good way to track global warming is to look, not just at the average temperatures, but at the number of days where the temperature is in a given range. How many days each year is the temperature above 100F, in the range of 32-40F, in the 20-32F range, and in the sub 20 degree range. Now, apply this to different places, not just where YOU live, but in different regions. Long Island, NY, Boston, MA, San Francisco, CA, Los Angeles, CA, even places like Las Vegas. Then you pick places in the middle of the country. Then, you can also track things like rainfall, days when there is cloud cover vs. clear skies. If you live in farm country, temperatures may not mean as much as rainfall figures, but temperatures have a large impact on cloud formation and rainfall patterns.

This is why it is difficult for some people to understand why some people are alarmed by global warming, it isn't JUST temperatures and sea levels, it is rainfall patterns that are affected. People who see the complexity, even without being terribly knowledgeable on the subject understand why even 2 degrees warmer or colder on average for a 20 year period is something to be concerned about.

With all of this said, I personally do not have enough knowledge of all the different factors to be alarmed. I do know that the issue is very complex, and should not be dismissed by people who don't know ANYTHING about the science of how weather and climatology work. People like Rush Limbaugh, who don't know ANY of the science and only look at superficial things like how cold it is in the fall and winter months in the midwest really need to keep their mouths shut, because they don't know enough to look at things from a balanced perspective.

There are some people who hit the panic button before it should be hit, and then you have people who don't know enough to be scared even when there are clear warning signs. These are the people who will say there is no problem just before a volcano erupts, even when the ground has been shaking and ash is falling around them. Don't let others decide for YOU what is an emergency and what is not, but don't close your eyes to the complexities of climate change either.

I will say this, growing up here on Long Island, NY, there were a LOT more days when schools would be closed for big snow storms than there are today. Back in the 1970s, you could expect a fair number of days when snow would close the schools. In the 1990s through today though, the number of snow days has dropped by quite a bit. It may be that the 1970s were unusual, or maybe even had less snow than in previous decades. It may be a part of a natural cycle, but it does seem like there are fewer true cold days today than in the past. It might even be enough for some people to really start looking at the numbers to see what sort of shift there has been in temperatures as well, so has sparked more interest in the subject.

quote: A good way to track global warming is to look, not just at the average temperatures, but at the number of days where the temperature is in a given range. How many days each year is the temperature above 100F, in the range of 32-40F, in the 20-32F range, and in the sub 20 degree range.

What would this tell us? Actually not much. If you don't compare year to year, then how can you spot a trend or now what is normal vs abnormal?

quote: Back in the 1970s, you could expect a fair number of days when snow would close the schools. In the 1990s through today though, the number of snow days has dropped by quite a bit.

I'm glad you are using so much scientific method to come up with your conclusion. Perhaps there are other factors to why there are less school days closed because of snow. Perhaps the town doulbled the snow plows? It would be neat if you actually used data, like inches of snow comparing the 70s to now. Or temperatures even. Would that be too technical for you? Or do you like sticking to "superficial" indicators.

quote: I'm glad you are using so much scientific method to come up with your conclusion. Perhaps there are other factors to why there are less school days closed because of snow. Perhaps the town doulbled the snow plows? It would be neat if you actually used data, like inches of snow comparing the 70s to now. Or temperatures even. Would that be too technical for you? Or do you like sticking to "superficial" indicators.

I doubt they have anything more than personal anecdotal evidence to prove their claim. Here is something, though, that refutes their "evidence": Long Island snow fall so far this year is approximately double the average.

Since carbon monoxide and dioxide and all the other nutrients we get from the tailpipe of a car, truck or whatever is so very very good for us we should never try to find alternatives or anything we should just escalate our use of oil untill its all gone just to see what happens. That way we will be able to finally prove to the algoreans that he was wrong. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

quote: TextBack in the 1970s, you could expect a fair number of days when snow would close the schools. In the 1990s through today though, the number of snow days has dropped by quite a bit.

Back in the 70's, at least where I grew up, snow days were strictly binary. We either had school or we didn't. Now more often than not they have delayed opening. This gives them time to clear up roads and schools and still get in a long enough day to count. Thus they have fewer cancellations,

An interesting thing to note regarding Schools being closed less often because of "Snow Days" is the simple fact that the public funding for schools is determined in part by the daily attendance so when a School is "officially closed" it loses funding for that day - no students - less funding! A second fact is that there are more "two income" families which adds further pressure on the schools to remain open for as many days as possibly.

quote: Growing up here on Long Island, NY, there were a LOT more days when schools would be closed for big snow storms than there are today...It may be a part of a natural cycle, but it does seem like there are fewer true cold days today than in the past.

According to NASA's GISS, Long Island has slightly *cooled* in recent decades-- not warmed. See my previous post on the subject for a link.

What are you a propagandist for Al Gore? Never read such hogwash in my life. Wake up the planet is not in danger, and mankind cannot destroy it or save it if it wanted. Notice that the Marxist now say Climate Change, now that the IPCC has admitted that we have been cooling for about 10 years. Also, NOT ONE PREDICTION by Al Gore or the other pushers have ever come true? That NONE of there computer models have predicted this current cooling trend, and that the solution to everything – warming, cooling, change or not change- is the same – bigger government, higher taxes, less rights, more central planning socialism. Don’t be one of Lennon’s useful idiots.

Sure, but there are TONS of "data points" that provide the same information. Arctic ice is increasing. Antarctic ice is increasing. This article points out that arctic SEA ice increased. The average global temperature has been on a downward trend since 1998. The warmest year on record is 1934, and 5 of the top 10 warmest years recorded by NASA were in the 20's and 30s.

How many datapoints do we need before we can say that AGW (which is now being called climate change, because of all the cooling) may not be 100% proven? I find it odd that the Global Warming Theory must be taken as a Law, despite the fact that the computer models supporting it have sofar proved inaccurate. Even if there WAS consensus in the scientific community, that wouldn't prove the Theory.

Well while it's true that the end of year 2008 matched the end of year 1979 according to that chart, you could have written the opposite article using the same reasoning... You could observe that from 1979-1995, the minimum red peak was -1.5, and it was usually just -1.0. But from 2002-2008, it was consistently peaking at -2, and the past 3 years it was peaking at -3.

So why wouldn't you be interested in the fact that over the past 15 years, the variation has been much stronger than the 15 before that?

I'm not saying my numbers are particularly meaningful, but neither is the fact that one data point on December 31st 2008 happened to equal one data point on December 31st 1979.

You talk about those who don't believe in global warming as though your still unproven opinion is the correct one. As of now I have yet to see a single article or piece of data that shows global warming is the truthful conclusion, since we do not yet have any actual evidence that supports the claim. You see the articles of ice melting, but do you not care to read about the ice that is growing? You hear of rising temperatures, but do you ignore the record low temperatures and record snow fall (and even snow in places its never snowed before)?

You seem very ignorant to come in here and tell that the people who don't believe in global warming only read single sided articles too, yet every article ON global warming never presents any alternative. They always try to point out that nothing other than CO2 emissions could possibly ever account for what happened.

Here is some logic that may help you see how complex this issue is. I don't have a complete understanding, but it may help show WHY things are more complex than they might appear.

If the waters in the Pacific are warmer, that leads to more evaporation. Due to temperatures then, you have more water vapor in the air, which leads to increased cloud cover, and as a result, rain on the west coast of the USA. This is very simplistic, but it DOES happen. Now, as the temperatures out there rise, you would expect the amount of water vapor to rise as well, leading to more and more wet weather, storms, etc.

More storms mean more cloud cover. If a given place is normally sunny, and has a normal temperature of around 75F, and has the number of clouds and storms increase, this will lower the temperatures(compared to the sunny days). If the change continues, what was formerly a sunny place with warmer temperatures will see a temperature DECREASE because there are more clouds.

Now, temperatures in a region are also affected by what is around them as well. Temperatures moderate themselves as warm air rises and cold air moves in under them. This is why mountains and hills surrounding a valley can block the colder air and keep things warm. Without hills though, you end up with a constant cycle. So, what happens if the balance of the cycle is changed due to increasing cloud cover/rain? Cooler air, less wind from the cooler areas around it, and you may find things are colder because there isn't the colder air to mix with.

Again, this is a VERY simplified example, but it is why the climate as a whole needs to be looked at, not just individual data points. There may not be enough hard evidence to back up the "humans are responsible for global warming" argument for many people, but at the same time, if temperatures are rising even in certain areas, and if those temperatures can be directly linked to human activity, then doing something about it SHOULD be done. It may not be the end of the world, but we should not allow it to be the end of a given place in the world either.

Temperatures in cities tend to be higher because of the concentration of people and machinery. This increase WILL have an affect on the surrounding areas, and the larger the city, the bigger the surrounding area that is affected. A reduction in how bad things are affected is a key to many clean-air policies.

Now, if you want to see what it would be like without all of the clean-air policies, go to Tijuana, or just down to the US/Mexico border near there. The stink from that city is pretty bad, and comes from a lack of regulations. Now, think about how hard it would be for animals to live in such an environment. Birds can be more vulnerable to air quality issues, so it makes it hard for a good life cycle to exist. Without a good and balanced ecosystem, you have higher temperatures, and as a result, it causes problems radiating out.

TARGON finally discovers that warmer oceans results in more water vapor in the air, and more precipitation -- rain, sleet, and snow.

As a MOISTER global atmosphere comes into contact with the polar ice caps, the result of moist air cooling over the poles is SNOW and ICE (frozen rain).

So the result of global warming must inevitably be GROWING ICE CAPS, and LOWER OCEANS. Heat causes evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation is moist air. Moist air when it comes into contact with cool areas results in SNOW and ICE.

Don't tap dance about wind patterns. Regardless of the first path of moister air from the warmer oceans, moister air will inevitably find its way to the poles, no matter what goes on in between, no matter how long it takes.

So if global warming is occurring, the polar ice caps should be increasing, not shrinking, and the oceans should DROP not rise.

Try putting a pot of boiling water on the stove. Then put a glass of ice-cold lemonade next to it. What will happen? The water will evaporate and will condense on to the ice-cold glass.

Furthermore, the temperatures at the poles remain below freezing. If the temperature increases from -15 C to -13.5 C, it is still below the melting point at 0 C. So how the hell is a 1 degree rise going to melt the polar caps?

Ironically, the growing ice at the poles is consistent with global warming. But the result will be lower sea levels, not higher.

i think you might be incorrectly lumping sea ice and land ice in to the same category. Increasing land ice would indeed lower sea levels, but its melting sea ice that also lowers sea levels. why? because its a floating piece of ice. if you put ice in a glass of water and what happens? the water level rises. similarly, when the ice melts, the water level in the glass is lower. the north pole is a floating piece of ice. if it all melted away, it would actually lower sea levels.that is not the case for places like Greenland or the Antarctic, which are mostly land ice formations.Also, the media seem consumed with talking about arctic sea ice melting, but correct me if i am wrong but i believe that 95% of global sea ice is in the antarctic circle and is growing. is there any evidence to suggest that a rise in sea levels is NOT due to increasing sea ice?

Err, go and try putting an ice cube in a glass of water. Mark the level of the water on the side of the glass. Now let it melt, check the level of the water and come back and apologise for being wrong...

ummm, are you a 4th grade drop out? water expands and becomes less dense when frozen. Thats one of the unique properties of H2O. Water reaches its maximum density at 39.2 degrees F (3.94 degrees C), then it decreases slightly in density until it reaches 32degrees F (0 degrees C), the freezing point. At this point, ice forms and its density decreases sharply. Ice, therefore, is much lighter than liquid water and thus forms at the surface of lakes rather than at the lake bottom.I dont know how to make it any more clear than that. But somehow Im pretty sure Im wasting my time even explaining this if you are trying to argue this point.

You are correct that if all the sea ice on the planet melted, the oceans WOULD FALL because ice displaces more volume than liquid water.

And of course the Northern polar ice cap is ALL "sea ice." I think someone else was saying that. The entire Northern ice cap is floating in the water. There is no land mass North of Canada and North of Russia. It is all sea ice.

However, global warming would trap more and more water on the polar ice caps: Especially Antarctica as a land mass.

If the oceans are warmer, more water will be converted into water vapor in the atmosphere. As it finds its way to the poles, it will precipitate and fall to the Earth as snow, rain, or sleet.

SOME will fall on the oceans and will probably not become ice, but will have a chance to be evaporated again later.

SOME will fall on the polar ice caps.

The snow and ice (frozen rain) that falls on Antarctica or the polar ice cap will REMAIN frozen and will accumulate.

To the extent that increased moisture in the atmosphere falls down on the polar ice caps and ACCUMULATES there... the oceans will FALL, not rise.

Certainly the ice and snow on Antarctica, as a solid land mass, would grow and would trap more and more water on land, rather than in the oceans.

So for BOTH the reason you identify and preciptation at the poles, the oceans would FALL if there is global warming.

So mankind would benefit from larger land areas, longer growing seasons, more lush garden-like conditions with more rain. Sounds like paradise.

quote: So for BOTH the reason you identify and preciptation at the poles, the oceans would FALL if there is global warming. So mankind would benefit from larger land areas, longer growing seasons, more lush garden-like conditions with more rain. Sounds like paradise.

quote: The stink from that city is pretty bad, and comes from a lack of regulations.

What other differences are there between nearly third-world latin America and the United States?

The main difference is government. The US government is founded on principles to protect individual liberties. The governments you describe are corrupt and powerful (this goes hand and hand) while individual liberties are much lower than those in the US.

Remember, pollution is simply an infringement of an individual's freedoms.

If an individual (or individuals in a company) infringe on my liberties through pollution, I have an entire government infrastructure in the US dedicated to help me protect those liberties. It's not the "regulation," it's the dedication to individual freedom.

However, your proposals do the opposite. They increase the power of government, and hence it's surface area for corruption. If an individual's freedoms are not rigorously defended, "regulation" will do nothing. Larger companies benefit the most from more government and more regulation and are able to manipulate the regulatory agencies to their benefit and the detriment of individuals.

Remember, "every government action has a smokestack on it's back." Nothing less than a passionate defense of liberty will reduce pollution and suffering.

No matter whether global warming as a human enduced phenomena proves to be right or wrong, do you really think those generations ahead of us are going to be angry that we invested time and energy into using the worlds resources more frugally, adopted renewable energy solutions, became far less polluting and generally more efficient? That's the way I look at it.

I agree, I think global warming in total BS but I also don't see the harm in finding better ways to do things. The only part that bothers me is the feeling people get of "We must use green energy in 10 years or the earth will explode."

Yeah, I pretty much find Al Gore to be one of the dumbest people on the planet and I am glad Bush beat him on a technicality on 2000.

Maybe the "technicality" that the Supreme court decided to stop counting votes, even though the laws of Florida explicitly allowed recounting contested counties. Oh, and the further "technicality" that said decision only applied to that one election.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and was happy he won. But the Supreme Court clearly cheated, and didn't try to hide it. Every justice who voted to stop the voting clearly did so to crown Bush winner, or else they would have made the case a binding precedent. It's obvious.

Of course if the networks hadn't called it early who knows what would have happened?

But what if they make thing worse. For example, DDT The most simple, cheap and safest pesticide we have come up with. It was vilified and all claims made against it have all been proven untrue. We replaced it with more complex and more expensive pesticides that are 1000 time more dangerous to man and animals.

CFC and R12 freon, one person came up with a theory that it harms the ozone and now more studies are proving that is false. Now we have come up with other types of freon that cost 300 times more are less efficient and the motors ,compressors have a much shorter life span because of the oils they have to use with the new types of freon.

The space shuttle that came apart during reintry. The reason why, The foam insulation that they cover the tanks with now is nowhere as strong as the CFC foam insulation that they used to use. Those astronaut died because of envirmental bulls*it. That was easily preventable.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you.Who owned the patent for R12 that was set to expire right around the time we switched to r134?DuPontWhere's DuPont headquarters?DelawareWho introduced the bill to ban r12 and switch to r134?Joe BidenWhere is Joe Biden from?DelawareWho owns the patent for r134?DuPont

Yes they will be upset because they will be poorer due to wasted resources trying to fix and imaginary problem. They will be better off with the resources the left is trying to block – like oil, coal, and nuclear.Conversation is great, but why waste time on the myth of renewable energy? Windmills and solar panels are highly expensive and will never contribute more then a few percent of our required energy needs. As for polluting, CO2 is not a pollutant it’s a fertilizer. Don’t fall into the Marxist trap of crating boogey men where they don’t exist. The Luddites have been wrong on DDT, Alar, multiculturalism, and other manmade scare de jour. They are just trying to scare you into giving up your money and liberties, and letting the aristocracy control your life.

Will future generations be upset if we limit the spread of electricity in Africa and Asia? If we're serious about reducing carbon, that's a necessary step, as that's the part of the world that's most likely to be bringing new powerplants online.

It's all well and good for us to argue about whether we shoudl be allowed to drive our SUVs, but many of the "solutions" to climate change result in short and long-term suffering. Example: the push to use more ethanol drove up food prices, and was at least partially responsible for food shortages and riots in many parts of the world. Lowering U.S. food production (fertilizer is really bad for the environment) could have a significant negative impact on developing countries.

Or another example: the U.S. has mandated a switch to away from incandescent bulbs. As folks switch to flourscent bulbs, we'll have a serious mercury problem on our hands. What will THAT do to the birds?

I think that's one of the main concerns of most deniers. The unintended consequences of our actions may end up hurting a lot of people.

First, we have been working to develop renewable energy since the 1970's, and really since WW II when oil was a national security problem for both the Allies and for the Germans and their excellent German engineers.

What makes you think it will work? After we have spent tens of billions of dollars on this research already for 40+ years, and have not succeeded yet, how can you just assume that renewable energy will ever work? It might. But how can you just GUESS that it will, and fail to develop other forms of energy like oil?

Second, we should most definitely develop forms of energy -- if we can -- that save us from sending hundreds of billions of dollars to countries that hate us every year.

If it is possible to be more energy efficient and/or to use forms of energy that do not depend on foreign powers, we should do so.

However, be HONEST about your goals. Man-made global warming is malarkey. Oil-producing nations who hate us and are sucking $700 billion a year out of our economy are REAL and an easily understandable problem that most Americans agree with and care about.

I believe that $4 a gallon gasoline caused our economy to tank. It sucked huge amounts of money out of people's household income, and businesses, and dragged down the economy. This caused difficulty for people to pay their mortgages.

So if the goal is to not throw away money for no reason, then fine let's do that.

But the goal changes the action plan. It can make a difference in what forms of energy solutions we pursue.

For example, TREES are renewable energy and a renewable resource. If you really want "renewable" energy, you would support the aggressive planting and harvesting of TREES and their use as fuel, including converted to wood chips that can burn very hot in electricity generators.

The most efficient device in the universe for converting solar energy into usable fuel is A TREE.

But if you are mesmerized by myths about global warming, you will run from that solution and will not pursue it.

quote: Oil-producing nations who hate us and are sucking $700 billion a year out of our economy are REAL and an easily understandable problem that most Americans agree with and care about.

just to be clear, we arent actually sending that much. dont get me wrong, i dont want to send ANY money to foreign countries that hate us, but the $700B figure is misleading. It comes from rounding total US petroleum imports for 2007 to 5 billion barrels X $140 per barrel = $700BWe didnt see $140/barrel for more than a couple months, let alone an entire year. You could just as easily say now that at $35/barrel we are spending only $175 billion a year on petroleum imports. Often left out of that number though is that about 30% of that goes to imports from just Canada and Mexico.

quote: I believe that $4 a gallon gasoline caused our economy to tank. It sucked huge amounts of money out of people's household income, and businesses, and dragged down the economy. This caused difficulty for people to pay their mortgages.

the commodity bubble last summer did indeed put massive strain on our somewhat shaky economy. but come on, you think an extra $20-25 to fill up caused this?? people couldnt afford their mortgages because they never should have gotten the loan to begin with. And when people realized that housing prices wouldnt go up forever it was already too late. housing prices started to drop and people could not afford to pay for a mortgage that was much more expensive than the house was worth, they couldnt get out of it either. They bought the house, even though they couldnt afford it, assuming it could ONLY gain value and be sold later for a profit. They got caught in the trap and foreclosure was just inevitable.All of this started happening LONG before gasoline hit $4. The seeds of failure were planted more than a decade ago. You can thank the Bush tax cuts that the economy was able to stay propped until now and we didnt feel the full effects of The NASDAQ/tech bubble bursting. see chart: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues...

Ah, not really Bush tax cuts, was it? Seemed more like the Fed making fake money. And lowering the interest rates so low that money kept flowing even though it should have dried up long ago to stop the bleeding. When interest rates are low, house prices go up, so the banks still make money on something. When the interest rate next year is 18%, you can sure bet houses will be worth far less than they are now. It allows those that can buy a house to do so. And the banks still make money.

quote: No matter whether global warming as a human enduced phenomena proves to be right or wrong, do you really think those generations ahead of us are going to be angry that we invested time and energy into using the worlds resources more frugally, adopted renewable energy solutions, became far less polluting and generally more efficient?

Let's not get too ahead of ourselves. Have you ever heard of the Montreal Protocol? That was the initiative that removed CFC's from our appliances in order to save the Ozone Layer. What was the result? LESS EFFICIENT air conditioning units and refrigerators. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE? We burn MORE ELECTRICITY to achieve the same cooling goals (That explains why we have rolling blackouts in the summer months in California now). For ONCE I would like a Global Warming Expert to explain how we came out of 7 Ice Ages before the Industrial Revolution, and how the Earth's Warming and Cooling is NOT tied to SOLAR ACTIVITY which MAN can do NOTHING ABOUT.

Afraid not, the reason California had blackouts was because Enron encouraged power companies to shutdown power stations to do unnecessary maintenance. Behind the scenes they were making financial bets on the ensuing rolling blackouts.

Once again, proof that deregulation is NOT the answer. Gee, isn't it a strange coincidence that financial deregulation occurred in the early 2000's and now, several years later, we have a financial meltdown?

quote: As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically.

Oh that's rich! The pervasive news and media coverage overwhelmingly uncritical or unquestioning of global warming alarmism that the public has been bombarded with on a daily basis for the past 10 years through the programming of top broadcast networks, top cable networks, the most widely-read newspapers and magazines, talk show hosts with massive viewership gleefully inviting Al Gore to use their show as a mouth-piece, and top-billed television dramas that regularly write the talking points of left-leaning advocacy groups into the script almost verbatim, is somehow magically contravened in impact on public perception by the token offering of global warming skepticism by John Stossel aired after midnight every five years.

Give me a freaking break. Global warming skeptics cannot buy, beg, borrow, or steal over an entire year the combined mainstream exposure that global warming proponents receive for free in the course of an average day.

quote: As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically.

It should be noted also that the BBC is in the British Government's pocket, and consequently is biased in favour of promoting AGW. The British Government is using AGW as an excuse to raise what it terms "Green Taxes".

Right. Do you realise how arrogant you come across as by making that sweeping statement?

The issue has been hijacked by politicians in just about every "developed" country on Earth and the UN, and they have their tame "earth sciences communities" in their pockets, because they are in control of who gets the "Mainsteam's" tax money to waste on preserving their mostly worthless jobs.

Vaclav Klaus (EU President)is right - these people are a luxury that we just can't afford.

quote: I really do not understand the massive anti-global-climate-change agenda and popularist following that manifests itself on sites like this.

It's simple! You take logic and critical thinking; mix it together with a little common sense.

The biggest problem in today's society is that everybody is looking for someone to blame. Blame is not a scientific study or solution. If your car keys are missing, you blame the kids; if your father dies, you blame him or the hospital; if you contract lung cancer, you blame the smokers at the bar in Applebee's. Can you spot the problem with this?

If we continue to use escape-goats, resources will be too constrained to make any real progress. We can't use science to prove blame but the actual cause. Global warming has become a political tool and nothing more, and most of the people that agree to it can be described the same. Unlike most fanatics of global warming, most people on this site do not jump to conclusions, and thank god. Primitive human instinct and psychology is the fight for survival and the illusion of safety. Let's blame everybody else for screwing up our earth, what better way to stay safe.

You are correct, it's poor media reporting. The mainstream media including the BBC is a very poor source of factual information on any subject. Mark Twain said something to the effect that if you do not read the newspaper you will be uninformed. If you do read it you will be misinformed.

The weather man gives a seven day forecast but has to revise it every day, so it's actually a one day forecast followed by six guesses. Yet he continues to call it a seven day forecast. Climate dynamics are so confusing.

"As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically."

That's rich. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. my friend. Global warming hysteria is ALL about big business and politics! No global warming means no funding for scientists. No funding means no jobs and raises. Those who create the most alarming "predictions" are the ones who get the most funding. Al Gore gets hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech to talk about this garbage. His book and DVD is still pulling in millions of dollars. "Green" solutions are the hottest trend in the marketplace. The UN climate panel is made up of politicians - not scientists. And politicians cater to the fears of the public no matter how absurd they may be. (Just look at what they do when a single peanut is found on a school bus these days!)

Global warming is more about big-business and politically motivated than the anti-global warming crowd will ever be.

The problem with Asher's method here is that he lumps all sea ice together, then makes insinuations about Arctic sea ice levels from that data. Of course, there's plenty of data on Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice separately. That Arctic sea ice data still shows:

a. a long term downward trend in sea ice extent.b. a current sea ice extent below the 1979-2000 average.c. a current sea ice extent below the 2007 level.d. a November sea ice extent 600,000 km^2 below the 1979 level. (The December sea ice levels aren't out yet. Next week, I think.)

Additionally, yes, I'd say this data is 'cherry picked'. Considering that, while the current global sea ice extent is roughly equal to 1979 levels, it's pretty clear that 1979 was a 'low' year. After all, this years end of year anomaly is clearly worse than 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007. It's roughly even with 1979, 1983, 1985, 1992, 1998, and 2004. It's better than 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2006. So in 30 years, this year is better than 5 years (all pretty recent), even with 6 years (pretty randomly scattered through the 30 years), and worse than the other 18 years.

Again, this is global sea ice. If we look at Arctic only, the picture is much worse. But the stabilizing influence of the Antarctic sea ice mass (which is 60% or so of total sea ice, and has been increasing in size by about .04%/year) makes this instantaneous picture of sea ice extent worse than only 60% of the previous 29 years.

Arctic sea ice has been growing at a below average rate, which means that the reduction in anomaly is due to a slower-than-normal melt in the Antarctic. The story should have been, "Unusually Slow Melting Season in Antarctic So Far".

1979 as a whole isn't that low - but you have to look at the exact data point masher has picked out (hence, the 'cherry picking' complaint) - the end of 1979. That data point, just like this years similar data point, is lower than 60% of the other years on the table. It's lower than 80% of the 80's, and 60% of the 90's.

Thank you for your useful post that had far better analysis of the data points that were abused in this blog post. I doubt that the post will be changed to accommodate these facts of course, but that's what happens when the original poster has an agenda, rather than presenting the facts with non-biased analysis.

Yup, this is Asher's repeated pattern: pick out one small fact, highlight it, twist it into a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact, then ignore all the other facts.

So this post is only his latest example: he says Arctic ice "saw a substantial recovery" in 2008. What a load of bull: check out this chart on the Wall Street Journal - you know, that bastion of liberal pinko communists - that demonstrates graphically the enormous loss of ice coverage in the Arctic over the last 30 years:

That chart shows an undeniable trend of massive ice loss which NEVER returns. None of that Arctice ice has "recovered." How does one look at that chart and says Arctic ice shows "substantial recovery"? By ignoring the overall picture and making unfounded claims, that's how. Of course, Asher's tried-and-true tactic is always point to one data in isolation, draw irrational conclusions from it and generalize to the point where all the other contradictory facts are ignored.

What I did in my initial post above was point to a graph published by the conservative Wall Street Journal that demonstrate the ENORMOUS loss of Arctic ice over the last several decades. On what basis did Asher make the claim that Arctic ice has "substantially recovered" in 2008? By pointing to the tiny amount of ice that returned in the Alaska area and saying "See, Arctic ice is coming back," as if Alaska = Arctic when in fact, Alaska ice represents only a tiny portion of total Arctic ice and the rest of the Arctic region saw no return of ice. The WSJ graph makes that abundantly and undeniably clear. Here it is again, at the bottom of the page:

Of course, here's an example of Asher's dishonesty. After initially asserting in his original blog post that "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008," he has since changed his blog, removing his remark without any note or retraction. Yup, altering your copy after you post it without making a note is the highest journalistic practice (heavy sarcasm). Caught in his flat-out lie, he's now resorting to trying to hide his paper trail.

And here's my retraction: I completely misread the blog post and now see Asher did NOT change his blog post. His "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008" is still there. It is still wrong but that's not the point: I was wrong to say he had removed it when he did not.

However, your post does highlight Asher's disconnect from reality. And it's not an innocent mistake that he's making - he knows he's lying by omission and cherry-picking, but he knows the value of "a lie told often enough becomes truth", AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Asher finds graphs or quotes that he can misrepresent without it being obvious to the average lay person, and certainly not obvious to those who *want* to be lied to.

And now DT is largely populated by frightened right wingers who *want* someone, even a nobody like Asher, to tell them climate change is not happening and it's all going to be alright.

You can't define a trend out of 4 data points----- unless, of course, you are a member of the Church of Global Warming Now. Remember, the glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receeding since 1881. Manmade? I think not substantially.Someone made the comment that it makes sense to do environmentally conscious things in defining our lifestyle. But to lurch into high cost---monetarilly and human life---programs at the behest of the likes of Al Gore is just silly.

Show me some good data. There's too much ignoring of data that doesn't agree with personal beliefs---maybe on both sides.

At least read(and comprehend) the previous sentence, ddarko: Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery.

The saw a substantial recovery commeny was directed at the possibility of the North Pole melting entirely in 2008, not historic arctic ice levels. The first sentence of the article sums it all up with mention of currentglobal sea ice levels being equal with 1979 levels. Can you point out something wrong with that?

Who cares? Sea levels are hundreds of feet below where they were millions of years before humans existed. Why do we insist that where they are now is the correct level? Why aren't we worried that they are too low in context of geological time?

It's called S-U-B-L-I-M-A-T-I-O-N...The process whereby a solid returns to a gas without going through the liquid stage. In the case of the Arctic/Antarctic icecaps it's a result of sunspot and solar wind activity of which we are currently reaching the end of the 40 year cycle. Unfortunately, our current crop of public-educated scientific geniuses haven't yet reached the point in their Einstein Readers that discusses critical thinking. The whole thing with Global Warming (or Climate Change, if you want to call it that) is a game of money, grants, and alarmism.

quote: Irresponsible people like this really shouldn't be allowed to publish their c**p.

How times change. Are you aware that people like you, who would call themselves liberal, once fought, protested, and died for the right of a free press and free society such that people could express theirs views, regardless of if they were "right" or "wrong" views? People still pursue this in benighted parts of the world, and it still often cost them their lives. Google for articles referencing murdered Russian journalists, or google for articles discussing Mugabe's men beating and murdering supporters of rival parties. I do believe it's illegal to speak negatively in public of the monarch in a couple South East Asian nations as well.

I swear, guys like this are the most insidious threat to modern civilization that exists today. Not nuclear weapons; you can destroy hundreds of cities and hundreds more remain. Definitely not global warming; individual liberty isn't imperiled by weather phenomenon, only other men can imperil that. Just these guys, advocating from positions that are equivalent to rolling back the past several hundred years of modern human social development.

Stating that people shouldn't be allowed in society to write and broadcast what they please is functionally the same as having a state controlled media, similar to the USSR and China, because who decides whats "irresponsible" and what is not? Why not advocate for the dissolution of Congress and restoration of monarchy? King Albert Gore the First, Keeper of the Green, Merchant of the Carbon Credit, Defender of Frog.

Who cares? 99% of the species that have ever lived on this planet have become extinct, how is this any different? Survival of the fittest, including due to other species. Adapt or die, that is the law of survival my friend.

How dumb can you be, just notice how many species of animals and plants are directly or indirectly responsible for many of the medicine we have today, some species even have "properties" that men can't reproduce in laboratory but that could greatly help us, and I'm just talking of the species we really know which aren't that many on this vast world.

quote: How dumb can you be, just notice how many species of animals and plants are directly or indirectly responsible for many of the medicine we have today, some species even have "properties" that men can't reproduce in laboratory but that could greatly help us, and I'm just talking of the species we really know which aren't that many on this vast world.

And? Look how long people have survived without many of these. Man has been around what, 100,000 years? 1,000,000 or so at least if you include our ancestry. On top of that, it isn't the small organisms and plants suffering, it is the complex animals. You think heat and CO2 are going to hurt plants? What space land do you live in?

Also to say we CAN'T reproduce those properties is ignorant, it is possible for us to reproduce anything with enough desire and research.

Wow you are ignorant, you cannot compare what happened over the past 1 million years to the impact we now have upon the earth. I am even willing to say that until the industrial revolution, our impact upon the earths ecosystems were a drop in the bucket compared to the changes that we have caused over the last 200 years.

Nature is a beautiful thing, it has the ability to adapt to many of the earths changes, but that being said plants animals take thousands of years to adapt. It is foolish to think that the old adage of the survival of the fittest applies in every situation, (especially when man is involved).

Just consider this, it has been proven that polar bears have already lived through at least one period where there was little to no ice, yet it was not until human intervention whether it be hunting, taking over habitat and possibly 'global warming' that they are being driven to extinction.

Now I find it funny that an animal that lives in one of the harshest places on earth, has survived without ice, and has no natural predator has such a hard time surviving. It seems to me that the polar bear is pretty much of perfect example of 'the fittest'.

quote: Wow you are ignorant, you cannot compare what happened over the past 1 million years to the impact we now have upon the earth. I am even willing to say that until the industrial revolution, our impact upon the earths ecosystems were a drop in the bucket compared to the changes that we have caused over the last 200 years.

You don't understand what I'm saying, please don't comment if you don't understand the topic at hand. I was referring to us using the medicines and things we discover in nature and how we have only recently started doing that.

quote: Just consider this, it has been proven that polar bears have already lived through at least one period where there was little to no ice, yet it was not until human intervention whether it be hunting, taking over habitat and possibly 'global warming' that they are being driven to extinction.

So? You act like we are somehow not a part of nature. We are subject to it just like anything else. Polar bears are not some fantastic species anyway, oh well.

quote: Now I find it funny that an animal that lives in one of the harshest places on earth, has survived without ice, and has no natural predator has such a hard time surviving. It seems to me that the polar bear is pretty much of perfect example of 'the fittest'.

That is not the harshest place on Earth, don't speak nonsense. The harshest place they have found life so far was at the bottom of the ocean in a crack in the crust. I forget the temperature but life is not supposed to be able to live there as it is too hot for anything else. Meanwhile they have found literally TONS of life there. Life will continue with or without us.

I also think you have a poor understanding of what "fittest" means in the terms of evolution. Fittest just means you work well in the environment you are in. Doesn't mean you have to overtake all other species, just means you have to be able to reproduce and continue the line in an environment you exist, which is the purpose behind evolution.

To finalize, you are babbling about all this crap which had nothing to do with what you responded to. Whether this was a mistake of hitting the wrong reply button, I don't know but that is quite the tirade over nothing pertinent to the post you replied to.

quote: You don't understand what I'm saying, please don't comment if you don't understand the topic at hand.

I meant to reply to your previous post.

quote: So? You act like we are somehow not a part of nature. We are subject to it just like anything else. Polar bears are not some fantastic species anyway, oh well.

Quite frankly it isnt. Name me one plant, animal or any living creature that has come even close to the impact humans have made in the last 200 years? As nothing like this has never happened before, the long term effects of our actions are totally unknown, we don't know for sure if nature will be able to adapt in the way it has in the past.

quote: That is not the harshest place on Earth, don't speak nonsense.

I said one of the .. which it is, no paragraph response required.. (Also there is no definitive harshest place on earth, so I don't know why you are trying to prove me wrong. Some would say its Antarctica, some would call the underwater heated guisers, some would say desert areas, to each his own)

quote: I also think you have a poor understanding of what "fittest" means in the terms of evolution. Fittest just means you work well in the environment you are in.

Which was my point, polar bears have previously 'worked well' in their environment, not to mention they live in the artic.. yet they are still dying off.

The point of my 'tirade' is your view is fundamentally flawed. The 'survival of the fittest' argument no longer applies' in every situation as human expansion has reached the level in which we humans make a large impact in the majority of the world. To think that we as humans can do whatever we want and nature will work its course without any repercussions is just plain naive.

quote: Which was my point, polar bears have previously 'worked well' in their environment, not to mention they live in the artic.. yet they are still dying off.

Then they die. That is how it works. We just happen to be an industrious species, we survive by what we make not by what we are. Nothing we make is "unnatural" as it all comes from our universe. We are merely working with what we have. Other animals seem to survive just fine.

Deer are annoyingly prevalent. Bears are basically moving back in to Detroit. Snakes, bugs, rabbits, rats all seem to do just fine with us. If the polar bear dies, we don't lose anything but a species we could easily clone and make again if we desire. It isn't needed, if they die they die.

quote: To think that we as humans can do whatever we want and nature will work its course without any repercussions is just plain naive.

No it isn't. As long as we can survive in it, anything else could as well. What next, complaining that our radar screws with whales and dolphins? Oh well, guess their location sucks for their environment now, make way for the other sea life. About the only time I can agree humans can become a problem is if we over hunt a species that we eat or need. Obviously this is just a case of us using our evolved intellect to realize that we need to not do that lest we want to starve.

quote: No it isn't. As long as we can survive in it, anything else could as well. What next, complaining that our radar screws with whales and dolphins? Oh well, guess their location sucks for their environment now, make way for the other sea life. About the only time I can agree humans can become a problem is if we over hunt a species that we eat or need.

So then it's ok for the resultant pollution (air, light, sonar) to damage and eventually destroy other animals and their habitats because we don't need them? And for what, frivolous trinkets like large screen tvs?

I have to say, I find your callous disregard for other living creatures quite appalling. I hope one day someone pays you the same disregard so you'll fully understand the folly of your words.

I believe respect for other living creatures is a defining human characteristic, and I'm glad your mindset is of the minority.

Cry baby Tree-hugger. I say bring on the 4G! Way more important than a dolphin. I can watch the sunrise in glorious 1080p on Discovery. I don't watch the ocean shows though so it doesn't matter about the sea life. Let 'em move or die, but don't stop my technology!

quote: Name me one plant, animal or any living creature that has come even close to the impact humans have made in the last 200 years?

Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) the first photosynthetic organism. It polluted the atmosphere with oxygen wiping out almost all the previous life-forms that depended on the absence of free oxygen to live. Cyanobacteria are easily the most destructive and polluting creature to ever live. The Oxygen they freed up through photosynthesis precipitated trillions of tons of Iron out of the oceans (its what we mine to get our iron) and drastically altered the pH and chemical composition of the oceans. If man put all of its resources to the task we couldn't hope to accomplish what Cyanobacteria did by living.

quote: Just consider this, it has been proven that polar bears have already lived through at least one period where there was little to no ice, yet it was not until human intervention whether it be hunting, taking over habitat and possibly 'global warming' that they are being driven to extinction.

Polar bears are NOT being driven to extinction. They don't even meet the guidelines for an endangered species.

Have you been in a cave for the last year ? They were only put on the list as an obvious liberal attempt at blocking efforts to drill for oil in Alaska. Its an known fact.

quote: And? Look how long people have survived without many of these. Man has been around what, 100,000 years? 1,000,000 or so at least if you include our ancestry

Man has been using medicinal herbs for a long time... and let's not even get into how man went from a nomad to sedentary, if you think that man never relied on other species you're dead wrong.

quote: Also to say we CAN'T reproduce those properties is ignorant, it is possible for us to reproduce anything with enough desire and research.

Desire, research AND TIME, the moment you acknowledge that species may be lost with them we also lose their properties, why do you think today we have "banks" with wild varieties of many crops and what not? it's to prevent them from disappearing and so they may still be used in the future.

quote: Man has been using medicinal herbs for a long time... and let's not even get into how man went from a nomad to sedentary, if you think that man never relied on other species you're dead wrong.

Did you miss the "many" part? They used some, but they clearly didn't know that shark DNA might be able to be used to fight cancer. Also plants aren't really going to suffer from more sun and CO2.

quote: Desire, research AND TIME, the moment you acknowledge that species may be lost with them we also lose their properties, why do you think today we have "banks" with wild varieties of many crops and what not? it's to prevent them from disappearing and so they may still be used in the future.

None of them are needed for our survival, we just want them for research and whatever special properties they have.

quote: Also plants aren't really going to suffer from more sun and CO2.

Maybe not but they will clearly suffer from man made events be it pollution, farms and what not.

quote: None of them are needed for our survival, we just want them for research and whatever special properties they have.

But if they don't exist anymore how can we research the properties they have?... You are on denial dude the fact is that nature is a huge laboratory with more chemical elements than any man made one. To say that we can discard all of this just cause they aren't needed for our survival TODAY or not "special" enough to your taste sounds rather foolish to me.

Unfortunately by debating the facts of "Global Warming" we are being misdirected away from the truth behind the "Global Green Agenda". Global warming is just a convenient vehicle that is being used by a core group of very influential leaders that appear to be working in unison to implement a far-reaching global agenda. Disguised as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity" are a disturbing, and not very well concealed group of current and former Heads of State, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe that have some very specific plans for controlling the future quality of life for you, your family, your nation, and all the citizens of the coming New World Order.Too dramatic? :) Well I have to say here that I am not a crazed conspiracy theorist but recent revelations that I have come across on the Internet have upset me. These revelations were found while simply trying to discover just what kind of a mess I suspect my big sister has gotten herself in to in her pursuit of astrology, and the acceptance of Sylvia Brown’s New Age spirituality. During my research I have found what appears to me as a disturbing connection between a whole lot of different people who have some very scary ideas about the future of the world and are working diligently to see that this vision comes true.Nobel Prize winner Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" is just a small part of this group of "Elites" that are planning your future.Well, I will leave you with some quotes and a link to a website that has this information complete with references. Please at least take a look at a little of the information for yourself. Check out the list of members of the Club of Rome triad (I know, sounds like wacko conspiracy stuff, and I am not near as good looking as the crazed conspiracy nut in the Mel Gibson movie who won Julia Roberts heart but man, there sure is a lot of dots that connect) on the Global Revolution page, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton..., and there is a long list of further direct quotes on the home page of this site.

The first quote below has an interesting phrase "Global Consciousness" and if you Google that phrase combined with Barbara Marx Hubbard and the "Planetary Birth Experience" you will find out what Al is referring to when he speaks of the "spiritual challenge to all of humanity". Barbara Marx Hubbard is a noted author, statesperson, philosopher, and mystic and is a founding director of the World Future Society. Al invited her to the Whitehouse and while there she expressed her wish to establish a "Peace Room" in the White House to compliment the Pentagon. This movement is cleverly disguised in cries for World Peace, Love and Unity. Well, who could be against World Peace, Love and Unity? Only a bunch of hateful bigots right? And who wants to be a hateful bigot?

"We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level." - Al Gore, statement following his acceptnace of the Nobel Peace Prize

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all ofour hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."

David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994.

Stanford environmentalist Stephen Schneider said: "We'd like to see the world a better place . . . to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

The crisis of environmentalism has been developed as a means to bring about a one-world government: "Through a skillful wedding of socialism, New Age Pantheism and a manufactured climate of despair over a 'dying planet', these powerful individuals (David Rockefeller and Edmund de Rothschild) are creating a climate of fear which will see mankind not only accept, but demand, a one-world government to deliver us from environmental apocalypse. This one-world government will, of course, be the capstone of their planned New World Order. "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill," declared members of the Club of Rome in a sweeping 1991 report on global governance. "All these dangers are caused by human intervention . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Brock Chisolm, director of the UN World Health Organization in SCP Journal: "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that theindustrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe thatsacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformationof society will not be necessary."- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

I don't know about you, but a "wrenching transformation of society" is not what I have in mind for my future. I don't want to be wrenched. May God (or the higher power of your choice, or no higher power at all as you please, have to be politically correct in order not to offend) protect us from those that are trying to save us. You know, that politically correct stuff sure ruins a good closing. :)

Now that the Polar bear population is exploding and we need to cull the herd of this nuisance species, I am organizing a polar bear hunt for May 2009. Only $3,200 after travel. Contact your local travel agent.

roflmao - Well I guess that, ahh- you're all going to die from dinosauric styled extinction - kind of hit the skids. The Iraq war turned around with the surge and they're coming out in July, so.... I guess the new "we're all going to die" is the "financial crysis". Gee I hope this one doesn't turn around, they'ell have to come up with a global virus... oh wait my bad - avian flu... and uncurable smallpox (kinda fell thru with not there WMD)... Hmm... I'm thinking... Oh how about death from electronic silicon chips after x years of exposure...(darn they tried that, cellphones) No wait - the suns polar magnetic fields will flip and will hurl a magnetospheric shock of immense proportion so we all must get rid of our metal items and invest in new plastic, natural, and ceramic items or we may all get magnetized to death when it hits... YES ! That's it - cars flying together on the highway like giant bar magnets... oh gawd the horror and death will be everywhere - marshall law no food supplies moving... death.. death. death.. That will do nicely, call Al manbearpig Gore immediately !

I read the DailyTech forum pretty much every day and I've started to tire of Masher's quest to defy logic and reason. First, I'd like to qualify a few things upfront. I am a male Republican (and a fairly conservative one at that), I'm in my 30s, I have a master's degree, and I am NOT a forum troll.

All that said, I fully expect to be voted down to at least -1 with this post. So go ahead, it really won't bother me. I have a few things to say. I think that Masher is probably a fairly intelligent person. However, I think he believes he is smarter than he actually is and feels inadequate or inferior in some way. He feels he has something to prove, like he needs to prove someone else wrong most likely. This anti-global warming fight he has going has to have some deeper roots. Post after post, nothing to talk about except how global warming is a myth, we can't change the earth, there is no problem, etc. It's almost like he's the angry lovechild of Al Gore, seeking revenge.

Despite what others have said about Masher backing up his posts with real data, I feel he does tend to cherry pick articles. There are lies, d**n lies, and statistics. See this one quotation from the article:

"However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began."

I don't know, this seems like it's reaching to me. I won't deny that sea ice may have grown in the last year, but this is one part of the world for one year. Look at the trends over the last 20 or so. Before you say it, I know, what about the trends for the last million? I think the last 20 should be used as a barometer given that there are now as many people alive on the earth as have ever lived before us. Also, real industrialization began less than 150 years ago and is at an all-time high. We are just starting to see the outcomes of this. I know what I have seen. The laws of science conclusively show that greenhouse gases do play their part in warming up the atmosphere, there is no denying that.

See this from the Lansing State Journal, August 31, 1994 (just a quick, easily findable source):

"Fossil fuels such as gasoline, methane and propane contain mostly carbon. When these fuels are burned, they react with oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.

Because of our heavy use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution. The destruction of forests which use carbon dioxide also contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide.

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse."

I believe this and have seen it demonstrated. I don't think the effect will be as great as originally theorized, but it will have an effect. The problem is that the atmosphere is not infinitely thick. In other words, the atmosphere cannot contain an infinite amount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Therefore, although continuing, global warming should have a limit, or ceiling, if you will.

On to personal observation, in my lifetime, I have seen the area I live in change. When I was young, it always seemed much colder in the winter and cooler in the summer. We had snowfall amounts up to 5 feet per winter. I'll bet we haven't seen 5 feet in the last 10 years. My father recounts a similar experience in his lifetime. I am aware that last winter was an unusually cold winter for the US, but not where I live in Virginia. It was quite the contrary.

I definitely believe that we have the intelligence for great things as humans. However, nothing comes without consequence. Every action has a reaction, and I believe we are starting to see the price of industrialization. I don't feel we need to be un-industrialized, but I think we need to pay attention and start working on ways to find balance.

I feel better getting that off my chest. Feel free to correct any grammar mistakes to point out how stupid I am and then feel free to rate me down.

I just have one comment: why do you global walarmist liberals always feel you have lie to start off with "First, I'm a Conservative male Republican..." to attempt to qualify your stance? I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that and read that. Who cares WHAT you are? What we care about is what you SUPPORT.

So you disagree with everything Masher states. Fine. But don't insult the intelligence of DT readers with your insipid comments of Gore's angry love child and expect us to believe a thing you post otherwise.

quote: I just have one comment: why do you global walarmist liberals always feel you have lie to start off with "First, I'm a Conservative male Republican..." to attempt to qualify your stance? I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that and read that. Who cares WHAT you are? What we care about is what you SUPPORT.

I wouldn't call myself a global "walarmist" liberal. I was just trying to make a point that although I'm a conservative republican that I can open my mind to see a few things without taking hard party lines. If you don't mind me asking, where do you lie in the liberal---conservative, democrat---republican continuum? If you actually care about what I support, then ask. I certainly don't support a liberal agenda with the exception of caring about the earth a little. I enjoy the outdoors and would like to keep them looking good as long as I can.

quote: So you disagree with everything Masher states. Fine. But don't insult the intelligence of DT readers with your insipid comments of Gore's angry love child and expect us to believe a thing you post otherwise.

I guess I was a little over the line calling Masher Al Gore's love child, I was just trying to figure out the place from where Masher's angst about global warming comes.

quote: If you don't mind me asking, where do you lie in the liberal---conservative, democrat---republican continuum?

Conservative towards Libertarian. I find government interference should be kept to a minimum, be it from feel good junk science that leads us to knee-jerk calamities and their repercussions like ethanol up to and including destroying our economy.

quote: I certainly don't support a liberal agenda with the exception of caring about the earth a little. I enjoy the outdoors and would like to keep them looking good as long as I can.

I don't think there is a person here who wouldn't agree with that. However, more and more evidence and more and more scientists are debunking the knee-jerk reaction of global warming. I also find it interesting none of you global walarmists have addressed why just 30 years ago global cooling was the big threat of the period.

Finally, I find it interesting that when you split it down party lines, it is the anti-capitalist, anti-success left in this nation that drinks the Algore kool aid. I suppose you just happen to fall in those lines, as an alleged conservative republican.

I do think ethanol is a joke as well. That said, we can import it from Brazil where they make it from sugar cane cheaper than we can make it in the US. By the way, screw GM, they've put themselves in a position where the Government has felt forced to bail them out, and we're left with the bill. Down with the $40,000 Volt that will probably never see the light of day.

By they way, I am not an "alleged" conservative republican. My voting record does not lie...

However, some of what Al Gore says is true. I don't really care for the man, but I can believe is some of the theories without name-calling.

quote: The laws of science conclusively show that greenhouse gases do play their part in warming up the atmosphere, there is no denying that

What they don't conclusively show, however, is just how much of a part they play. Is it enough to cause concern? Is a slight degree of warming harmful or beneficial? That's what the debate is all about.

quote: in my lifetime, I have seen the area I live in change. When I was young, it always seemed much colder in the winter and cooler in the summer [in Virginia]

According to NASA's GISS, Virginia is ~3F *colder* now than it was over a 1951-1980 baseline average period.

quote: What they don't conclusively show, however, is just how much of a part they play. Is it enough to cause concern? Is a slight degree of warming harmful or beneficial? That's what the debate is all about.

I guess that's our main point of contention. I just think it's impossible to say that a slight degree of warming is beneficial. I understand that it opens up more farmland for more food etc., but there are also many other negatives that come with warming, such as droughts, dried up rivers, changing ocean currents, loss of glaciers, etc.

quote: According to NASA's GISS, Virginia is ~3F *colder* now than it was over a 1951-1980 baseline average period.

Please provide a link, I'd be interested in seeing how detailed this report can be, as my part of the state certainly seems warmer.

quote: Please provide a link, I'd be interested in seeing how detailed this report can be, as my part of the state certainly seems warmer.

I'm not sure of the relevance either way. Yes, it was cold as hell last year in Florida (and places as disparate as Iraq and China), but we also hit historic lows in the last couple months again this year. Even reports of snow along the coast, something unheard of. It's warmed up since, but the winter weather is just getting started. I can't remember back in to the 80s as far as weather goes, but older folks who have been here all their long lives haven't seen winters like the past couple. Hence the aforementioned historic daily low temperatures.

So, with your Virginia I call you with Florida, and raise you a China. And for whatever its worth, I didn't think your op deserved -1, it wasn't radical like so many others.

See the large blue spot covering the SE US? That indicates cooling from the 1951-80 mean.

I also note this is based off the GISS dataset, which has been heavily criticized for making a large number of artificial adjustments which act to warm the data. The actual amount of surface cooling in Virginia is likely to be even higher.

As a side note, one constant throughout history is that people always -- no matter what century or nation they lived in -- believe weather to be growing more extreme as they themselves age.

quote: by masher2 on January 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM quote: Please provide a link, I'd be interested in seeing how detailed this report can be, as my part of the state certainly seems warmer http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.... See the large blue spot covering the SE US? That indicates cooling from the 1951-80 mean. I also note this is based off the GISS dataset, which has been heavily criticized for making a large number of artificial adjustments which act to warm the data. The actual amount of surface cooling in Virginia is likely to be even higher. As a side note, one constant throughout history is that people always -- no matter what century or nation they lived in -- believe weather to be growing more extreme as they themselves age.

I did a quick look around and what you are saying overall (not just Virginia) seems to be contradicted overall based upon this study from the same sitehttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/I would say that 90 percent of the map shows warming in the last calendar year, most extreme at the poles. Also, look at the chart to the right, looks like a pretty steady increase in temps since 1980 after a somewhat flat/slight cooling period from 1940 to 1980. Also, I like this quotation from that study

"The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements. It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008."

> "what you are saying overall (not just Virginia) seems to be contradicted overall based upon this study "

Nothing in what I say is contradicted by GISTEMP. It's also not "a study" but simply a dataset. And one that is heavily massaged and adjusted, I might add, rather than being raw temperature data. The Hadley Center dataset (HadCRUT) is slightly cooler. Satellite-based tropospheric datasets (which are immune to urbanization effects) much cooler still. These show a cooling trend since about 2001, whereas a dataset like Hadley shows it only for the past couple of years.

GISS is operated by Dr. James Hansen, the most extreme of all global warming alarmists, a man who has staked his entire professional career on the belief that man is destroying the planet. Just a few months ago, he flew to London to testify that a group of environmental activists, on trial for damaging a coal power plant, had "every right" to break the law in "defense of the planet". Hardly a disinterested bystander.

quote: Hansen testified in support of the defense’s assertion that the Greenpeace members had a “lawful excuse” because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of global warming — caused in part, they allege, by coal burning.

But hold on, if you read the National Review article, it turns out all these quotes came from a news report about the paper in The Independent, a British paper. Then, if you read the Independent article, you discover an amazing thing: those "quotes" weren't Dr. Hansen's words, they were the words of the JURY that acquitted the defendants!

It's the JURY that said the defendants had a "lawful excuse." Dr. Hansen NEVER testified that the defendants had a "lawful excuse" yet the National Review and Asher flat out lie and say that was his testimony. Or its guilt-by-association: since he was an expert for the defendants, he MUST agree with the actions of the defendants, therefore, he is an eco-terrorist. No matter his testify was limited solely to providing the jury scientific background about climate change, like a medical doctor explaining to a jury how DNA works. According to the logic of the National Review, any expert who testifies for a defendant automatically agrees and endorses every aspect of the defendant's case and arguments.

Even the very idea that a judge would accept testimony from a scientist about the validity of a legal theory is laughable on its face. Experts are asked to testify in their field of knowledge, not outside it. Dr. Hansen is a scientist: why would he asked to give his opinion about a legal theory? Do you call dog catchers to the stand and ask them their opinion about DNA evidence? In fact, if you read real accounts of Dr. Hansen's estimony in - not the slander in the National Review - you see he did not testify at all about whether he agreed with the defense's legal argument.

But Asher can't be bothered with telling the truth or doing the legwork of a proper journalist, even though he fancies himself one. Nope, he just swallows what he reads in the National Review and wingnut fringe sites and regurgitates. Can't be bothered to do my homework, I've got ideology to push!

paste: A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

Me: I would like to find that statement verified from video or repeated on a GISS website. What does it mean? All of Al Gore's data always was and still is garbage. Hansen is Al's source. Hansen's own spokesman says GISS data is unreliable. That's all folks.

quote: Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station

The jurors didn't say it; it was the defense's legal argument.

> you see he did not testify at all about whether he agreed with the defense's legal argument.

From the same article:

quote: Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

fender,charts can be deceptive. this video does a pretty thorough job discussing the issue and i think it is worth watching.(note: this link is for part 1 of 6. the other videos can be found next to this one under the tab for other videos uploaded by that youtube user)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-c&eurl=ht...

quote: I guess that's our main point of contention. I just think it's impossible to say that a slight degree of warming is beneficial. I understand that it opens up more farmland for more food etc., but there are also many other negatives that come with warming, such as droughts, dried up rivers, changing ocean currents, loss of glaciers, etc.

If this warming is a natural occurance and not man made, then what are we to do? I think more should be done to study how we should react to these changes if it is found to be a natural occurance that we can't control with limiting our CO2 output. Because if it is we will be in a world of hurt by focusing all our efforts on figuring out what causes it instead of how to cope with it.

Well, the way I understand it it's simple. Cosmic rays are constantly bombarding the Earth, causing clouds. Clouds cause cooling. Sunspots create more solar wind, which in turn shields the earth from cosmic rays, which in turn means less clouds, which causes warming. There are studies showing a direct correlation between the above and the temperature trends on Earth. More sunspots, more warming, and vice-versa. There is nothing I've seen that shows any correlation to anything that's been done by mankind that's caused climate change. Less than 1% of greenhouse gas is CO2. Largest component of greenhouse gas: H2O.

My conclusion: scare the uninformed, get funding for "scientists", give the federal goverment more excuse to control us by "fixing" a nonexistant problem.

Well, exactly. As I understand it, there is a secret order that controls most of Hollywood and they have mastered control over the neutrino - which as we all know full well controls the behaviour of *everything*... The only people they answer to are the illuminati - and they have begun testing their death rays in the most remote Arctic regions. These neutrino death rays (which will require the activation of the Large Hadron Collider) will sterilise all humans of impure genetics - thus causing the dominance of a super race who will control mankind until the end days when Jesus returns to save us all.

ALL data on global warming can be called inconclusive because we don't have a way to prove that CO2 emissions are in fact the cause of any temperature change. I'm all for a "better safe than sorry" attitude, and 100% for better, cleaner, safer fuels and better gas mileage, etc, but I also feel that global warming is HIGHLY HIGHLY overrated, if not completely false in itself.

Why, it's opinion without any supporting data. Michael Asher's post used cherry picked data to twist the conclusion in the direction of his own personal agenda - not the first time this year this has happened with his anti-global-climate-change posts either.

Now the poster you replied to has the right to have that opinion, but I wonder if he has the strength to admit he was wrong if it turns out to have been entirely incorrect?

Like i mentioned, i feel that global warming is highly overrated but still feel we should move towards a "greener" society. I'm no hippy environmentalist, but i would like to see things move forward. If it turns out that global warming is true, I really can't argue, and i would accept that, but as i said before, there is no definite proof that CO2 emissions are the cause of any climate change right now. A continuing trend of increasing temperature (which hasn't been the case recently, with record lows and record snowfalls) and increased CO2 in the air doesn't prove anything at all, it could be mere coincidence. I give no evidence towards any claims only because i don't HAVE any claims. I am not trying to back the author nor anyone else, simply stating that what we have now is entirely too inconclusive to actually give a true answer.

Better safe than sorry, yes, i do agree. Are we doing the right thing? Yeah probably. Whether global warming is a scare tactic to get people to be friendlier to the environment, a plot for gore to make money, or it is an entirely real threat, the actions we are taking are no doubt for the better.

Those record snow fall amounts sure don't show anything about where I am living though. This is where I fault the anti global warming crowd. They look at data for massive snow storms and think that it somehow must show that global warming does not exist.

Something that really comes into play is HOW these huge snow storms are fueled, so their source can be found. People understand things like hurricanes are fueled by warm waters for example, so if the waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are warmer, it can lead to more and more powerful hurricanes. Most people don't look at why the midwest will get more cold weather and storms in the winter, so don't know if there might be a connection.

I agree with you that global warming MAY not be entirely caused by humans, but the climate isn't just about temperatures, it is about things like rainfall, and the overall balance between things that increase CO2 and things that absorb it and produce O2. This is something that more people can understand. If the trees are gone, the processing of CO2 into O2 is gone, and we end up with a dead planet. If the amount of CO2 goes up due to human activities, we really NEED to spend effort into boosting the conversion process.

Of course, considering how much better the air around major cities has gotten since the 1970s as a result of clean air policies, most people should really be happy about many of these regulations. This goes back to the whole idea that the focus should be on striking a balance. The problem is that countries like China and India have no clean-air policies, so are releasing a lot more CO2 and other pollutants into the air. As a planet, because a balance is needed, the USA ends up being the "activist country" and trying to push for better air.

There is so much wrong with that guy's post above yours, it isn't even funny.

Not to mention that the large majority of oxygen (70-80%) is produced by algae in the oceans. We could lose all the land plants and be totally fine oxygen wise.

Moreover, plant growth is principally limited by the concentration of CO2 in the air needed for carbon fixation. Increasing CO2 levels will allow for increased plant biomass, the spreading of plants to more arid regions (plants primarily lose water as part of the system for CO2 uptake, so more CO2 in the air, less water will be lost for the same gains, thus less water is needed to support the plant). More plants means more food and more oxygen, so that defeats his entire point.

Besides, considering the immensely higher levels of CO2 in the Devonian period compared to now, I'm not worried about CO2.

Personal agenda - The author is heavily invested in oil futures and wants to debunk global warming to drive up the price of crude? No, global warming theory is driving the price of that up. So then he's actually buying carbon credits hoping the same for them. No, that wouldn't work either. Without global warming all these carbon credits are going to turn out to be bunk. And alternative fuels are going to appear a good bit premature. And then we'll just deal with evaporating fossil fuel supplies when it actually starts occurring.

Unfortunately by debating the facts of "Global Warming" we are being misdirected away from the truth behind the "Global Green Agenda". Global warming is just a convenient vehicle that is being used by a core group of very influential leaders that appear to be working in unison to implement a far-reaching global agenda. Disguised as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity" are a disturbing, and not very well concealed group of current and former Heads of State, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe that have some very specific plans for controlling the future quality of life for you, your family, your nation, and all the citizens of the coming New World Order.Too dramatic? :) Well I have to say here that I am not a crazed conspiracy theorist but recent revelations that I have come across on the Internet have upset me. These revelations were found while simply trying to discover just what kind of a mess I suspect my big sister has gotten herself in to in her pursuit of astrology, and the acceptance of Sylvia Brown’s New Age spirituality. During my research I have found what appears to me as a disturbing connection between a whole lot of different people who have some very scary ideas about the future of the world and are working diligently to see that this vision comes true.Nobel Prize winner Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth" is just a small part of this group of "Elites" that are planning your future.Well, I will leave you with some quotes and a link to a website that has this information complete with references. Please at least take a look at a little of the information for yourself. Check out the list of members of the Club of Rome triad (I know, sounds like wacko conspiracy stuff, and I am not near as good looking as the crazed conspiracy nut in the Mel Gibson movie who won Julia Roberts heart but man, there sure is a lot of dots that connect) on the Global Revolution page, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton..., and there is a long list of further direct quotes on the home page of this site.

The first quote below has an interesting phrase "Global Consciousness" and if you Google that phrase combined with Barbara Marx Hubbard and the "Planetary Birth Experience" you will find out what Al is referring to when he speaks of the "spiritual challenge to all of humanity". Barbara Marx Hubbard is a noted author, statesperson, philosopher, and mystic and is a founding director of the World Future Society. Al invited her to the Whitehouse and while there she expressed her wish to establish a "Peace Room" in the White House to compliment the Pentagon. This movement is cleverly disguised in cries for World Peace, Love and Unity. Well, who could be against World Peace, Love and Unity? Only a bunch of hateful bigots right? And who wants to be a hateful bigot?

"We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level." - Al Gore, statement following his acceptnace of the Nobel Peace Prize

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller

"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all ofour hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."

David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994.

Stanford environmentalist Stephen Schneider said: "We'd like to see the world a better place . . . to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

The crisis of environmentalism has been developed as a means to bring about a one-world government: "Through a skillful wedding of socialism, New Age Pantheism and a manufactured climate of despair over a 'dying planet', these powerful individuals (David Rockefeller and Edmund de Rothschild) are creating a climate of fear which will see mankind not only accept, but demand, a one-world government to deliver us from environmental apocalypse. This one-world government will, of course, be the capstone of their planned New World Order. "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill," declared members of the Club of Rome in a sweeping 1991 report on global governance. "All these dangers are caused by human intervention . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Brock Chisolm, director of the UN World Health Organization in SCP Journal: "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that theindustrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe thatsacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformationof society will not be necessary."- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

I don't know about you, but a "wrenching transformation of society" is not what I have in mind for my future. I don't want to be wrenched. May God (or the higher power of your choice, or no higher power at all as you please, have to be politically correct in order not to offend) protect us from those that are trying to save us. You know, that politically correct stuff sure ruins a closing benediction.

Well what exactly is "safe"? There were something like 34,000 automobile fatalities in the U.S. last year. It would be much safer to get rid of automobiles wouldn't it. It would save 34,000 lives a year in this country alone. And if it would save even one life, isn't it worth it?

Wanna walk? How about ride a horse? Except that horses killed more people than cars. "Safe" is a red herring.

Safe is not disrupting the economies of the industrialized world to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. Sea levels were hundreds of feet above where they are now millions of years before humans existed. Why do we insist that they must not rise above where they are now?

quote: Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

The NSIDC doesn't agree with you ->

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im..."Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of November was 10.63 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles).Ice extent for the month of November was 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) greater than November 2007 but 680,000 square kilometers ( 260,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 November average."

quote: Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

'Melt entirely' - you've been listening to whatever 'alarmist sensationalists' you surround yourself with. Neither NASA nor the IPCC would have said the North Pole would be totally ice-less in 2008 (in 2008).

For what month is that, just curious? And what is 'substantial recovery'? It is by most accounts going steeply downhill.

You've made three separate errors here. First of all, Arctic sea ice is only part of total global ice. Secondly, the average for November 2008 is *not* the same as the amount of ice at the end of 2008. And thirdly, the 1979-2000 average is not the same as the value at the end of 1979 itself.

The new prediction now is that the North Pole will be ice free within the next five years.

> "As for the polar bears, they still don't agree with you"

Polar bear populations dipped below 12,000 in the 1960s. Today, levels are over double that: around 25,000. That's a substantial increase, any way you slice it.

Furthermore, recent research on polar bear genetics reveals they evolved earlier than once thought, which means the species have survived at least one interglacial in which no polar ice whatsoever existed.

quote: > "Neither NASA nor the IPCC would have said the North Pole would be totally ice-less in 2008" Many researchers and media sources did in fact make such alarmist claims. Here's just one of many: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c... The new prediction now is that the North Pole will be ice free within the next five years.

First, a point of logic- he's talking about NASA and the IPCC, not media sources and the researchers that they randomly interview. The interview you cite makes a sensationalist claim in its headline, yet a good portion of its content doesn't agree 100% with the thesis it is attempting to support. In fact here's an interesting quote from the article:

'"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.'

Even odds is much different than predicting the ice should have disappeared. Then the article then paraphrases, not directly quotes, this same Doctor in order to support its thesis:

'Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice – and perhaps all of it – will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said. '

The "science editor" for this article obviously took some editorial liberty in order to try to support a headline that people will read. It is unfortunate you missed these telltale details in the article. It seems like given your penchant for trying to prove that the climate crisis doesn't exist (I am not implying whether it does or doesn't), you would have noticed this and sooner criticized it as an article from an alarmist media rather than actual claims from real researchers. This is flimsy at best.

This is besides the fact that Grabo was talking about NASA and the IPCC, not random researchers and media outlets. Seems a little like an apples to oranges comparison, don't you think?

quote: Polar bear populations dipped below 12,000 in the 1960s.

Sorry, I have to call you on this one as well: there is practically no data at all for polar bear populations in the 60's, it's a series of guesses. We only really know that the populations were severely affected by excess hunting, and it wasn't until the 70's that international agreements began to be passed which controlled the hunting of polar bears, which *should* have had a positive affect on their populations.

Further, modern methods of tracking population were not implemented until the last few decades, and even then, there are still a good number of subpopulations that there just isn't enough data to make a good guess about growth rates.

The data on expanding Polar Bear populations is very well established:

quote: In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

LOL, you need to read that article carefully- that was part of the question- here was the answer:

quote: "In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent." If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case. The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

It is so sad that reading for context seems to be a lost art in a society that prizes headlines and quick google searches for answers.

But, the rest of the article pretty much fleshes out what I said- thank you for helping to prove my point!

It sure is. You lost the point entirely here. You started off by trying to say that polar bear populations haven't increased. That's wrong, and it seems even you admit that now.

The article above says, in effect, "yeah we know they've gone up a lot but we're still worried because of global warming". Even though the observational data says everything is all right, they're concerned because the MODELS tell them polar bears might be in trouble in the future.

You find an article that confirmed everything I said, and yet you keep going.

quote: It sure is. You lost the point entirely here. You started off by trying to say that polar bear populations haven't increased.

I took the pain of rereading my posts about polar bears- here's what I said:

quote: Sorry, I have to call you on this one as well: there is practically no data at all for polar bear populations in the 60's, it's a series of guesses.

In fact, I never said populations haven't increased- I merely stated what should have happened given excess hunting or international agreements banning excess hunting. That is completely different than saying they haven't increased.

My whole point was that we don't have enough data about the populations between the 60's or even now to conclusively say whether they've grown substantially or not.

At this point, I must ask- are you confusing me with another poster who said the populations haven't grown?

quote: "yeah we know they've gone up a lot but we're still worried because of global warming"

The article says nothing of the kind. You focused on the question being asked, and the doctor who answered it contradicted it almost completely. Here's a few key quotes from the doctor that tell the story:

quote: Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined.

quote: The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects

quote: At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole. There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies.

And finally:

quote: The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears—the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview.

In fact, I cannot find one place where Dr. Derocher said that populations have grown. The closest the article comes to making any kind of authoritative conclusion is to say we don't have enough data to provide an answer.

The quote you took from the article is not authoritative, and is a question asked based on data taken from Fox News- last I checked, Fox News is not an authoritative source on polar bears. Even if they were, obviously, Dr. Derocher is a higher authority than Fox News, and he contradicts their data. In fact some might say that Fox news is not an authoritative source on anything (but I'm not necessarily saying that ;-) ).

When I say we do not have enough data on the populations of bears, what I imply is that we don't necessarily know whether an increase or a decrease has taken place. For all we know, during the 60's, there could have been 50,000 bears in existence, but due to the excessing hunting that took place during that decade, the populations were vastly reduced until the 70's when it began to be regulated.The numbers could have been increasing in spite of the hunting. We don't know. So to compare the 60's to today's number is effectively meaningless, because we have no idea what the number during the 60's was- this was my comment if you read the post you originally responded to.

The whole reason why Dr. Derocher made that comment about the 70's is that after you regulate the hunting of the bears, it follows logically that their numbers should increase.

This is why Derocher's final statement about bear populations is this:

quote: The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears—the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview.

The effects of declining habitat could have begun in the 80's or 90's. So while the population increased in the 70's, any number of changes could have had any number of affects on the population.

And it turns out, it also may be fruitless to compare todays numbers to anything after the seventies, as I will show in the next section.

quote: It takes all of 15 seconds to prove polar bear populations have grown a lot in the past 30-40 years, from any of a hundred different sources.

Then why didn't you do the research- may I submit yet another page from the beloved Polar Bears International site?

quote: As a result, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group reclassified the polar bear as a vulnerable species on the IUCN's Red List of Endangered Species at their most recent meeting (Seattle, 2005). They reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior reclassified the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, citing concerns about sea ice loss. Canada and Russia list the polar bear as a species of concern.

So let's get this straight, of the 19 recognized subgroups:- 5 are in decline- 5 are stable- 2 are increasing- 7 have insufficient data

7 out of 19 equates to roughly 1/3 of the subpopulations that we do not have sufficient data on. Let's link the data further:

According to Derocher: "At this point, we lack quantitative data for an overall assessment of trend in Canada or Nunavut as a whole."

In the other PBI article I linked to, they say:

quote: No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

If 60% of the bears populations live in Canada, and according to Dr. Derocher, we can't make a guess as to the trend's of Canada *as a whole*, it effectively means a couple of things:

A) we don't know if they are growing or shrinking at the present momentB) we don't even really know if there are more or less than the 60's, as made clear by this quote: "No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate"

My post was not merely a commentary on the lack of data of the 60's, but it is also a commentary on the lack of data we have today as to make solid conclusions about what is happening to the bears, especially now that we must consider the possible threat of a declining habitat.

It does not matter that the population has gone up since the 60's mainly because the reasonings for such declines are different.

That being said, although the way your drew your conclusion is wrong, you happen to be correct. The polar bear population is actually increasing, and not just since the 70's it is actually ongoing. Only two regions of Polar bears are decreasing, which accounts for around 16%, while the rest are either increasing or have remained the same. In fact the population has grown 15-25% in the last decade alone.

Of course most of this is due to media awareness and hunting laws that have been put in place, the bear population is still nowhere near the level it was once at.

Thank you omicronx, for being of higher mind than grenableu by not insulting me.

quote: Only two regions of Polar bears are decreasing, which accounts for around 16%, while the rest are either increasing or have remained the same. In fact the population has grown 15-25% in the last decade alone.

quote: They reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior reclassified the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, citing concerns about sea ice loss. Canada and Russia list the polar bear as a species of concern.

quote: As a result, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group reclassified the polar bear as a vulnerable species on the IUCN's Red List of Endangered Species at their most recent meeting (Seattle, 2005). They reported that of the 19 subpopulations...

So unless the bears made a major recovery in the last three years, or they found reliable data of those 7 subpopulations that they formerly didn't have data for, then we find ourselves in a situation where we don't have enough information.

quote: You've made three separate errors here. First of all, Arctic sea ice is only part of total global ice. Secondly, the average for November 2008 is *not* the same as the amount of ice at the end of 2008. And thirdly, the 1979-2000 average is not the same as the value at the end of 1979 itself

1. Yes. In terms of how you write: You wrote about total global sea ice, then described land ice, then talked about 'Arctic ice'. It isn't clear as crystal to me, and sometimes I get the impression you make three (debatable) points and then insinuate a much grander truth, but who knows eh?

2. No, December National Snow and Ice Data Center numbers don't appear to he out yet, as pointed out above. Still, the November numbers for the Arctic look grim (compared to the 1979-200 average) and this graph: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/dail... appears to include december. Notice the lack of a 'substantial recovery'.

3. Nay, it isn't. But you cannot argue that the Arctic sea ice and Greenland land ice extents have not been experiencing a downward trend since at least 1979.

I can't see that the NSIDC thinks the Antarctic + Arctic sea ice extents were even roughly the same 1979 as 2008 either. (See the first link).

This is what they write about the Arctic sea ice -> sept 2008:

"The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached new record lows in 2002 (15.3 percent below the 1979-2000 average), 2005 (20.9 percent below), and 2007 (39.2 percent below). In 2007, Arctic sea ice broke all previous records by early August—a month before the end of melt season (see Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows). In 2008, the September minimum was the second lowest on record, only 9 percent above 2007, despite cooler summer conditions (see Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume)" and nothing suggests a 'substantial recovery' in november or december.

quote: Polar bear populations dipped below 12,000 in the 1960s. Today, levels are over double that: around 25,000. That's a substantial increase, any way you slice it.

Is there a solid reference for that..? This point has already been questione, but but see the Canadian Wildlife Service predictions and observations:http://www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecb/da02s14.en.html->"The western Hudson Bay Polar Bear population lives near the southern limit of the distribution of the species, where it is most vulnerable to changes in ice formation as a consequence of environmental or climatic fluctuations. Over the past 15-20 years, the condition and natality of this population of Polar Bears have been declining. These declines appear to be directly related to a trend towards the earlier breakup of sea ice in western Hudson Bay, due to warmer spring temperatures, which reduces the time that polar bears have access to seals. Although the declines in condition and natality have not yet led to a decline in the size of the population, it is clear that if the trends continue in the same direction , they will eventually have a detrimental effect on the ability of the population to sustain itself. The effects of long-term climatic change are not only restricted to Polar Bears in western Hudson Bay , but will be of obvious significance to polar bears throughout the circumpolar Arctic. The Hudson Bay population is the only one for which sufficient data currently exists to examine trends and determine effects"

quote: Furthermore, recent research on polar bear genetics reveals they evolved earlier than once thought, which means the species have survived at least one interglacial in which no polar ice whatsoever existed.

While I can't draw any mad conclusions from this, it is nevertheless rather interesting.

> "sometimes I get the impression you make three (debatable) points and then insinuate a much grander truth, but who knows eh?"

In case there's any confusion about my beliefs on the long-term status of the Arctic:

quote: We tend to think of the poles as immutable, but geologically speaking, permanent polar ice is a rare phenomenon, comprising less than 10% of history. Icecaps form briefly between interglacials, only to melt as the next one begins -- this time around will be no different.

So we know the Arctic will eventually be open water. The only question is how it will affect us.

'We' (the scientifically literate) never thought of the poles as immutable. 'We' know the climate has changed over the course of millions of years - duh.

What 'we' also know is that there has been a rapid deterioration of ice at the Arctic over the last few years which is just one indicator of the accelerating climate change caused by burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other mismanagement of the environment.

Your series of tiny truths sandwiched between Big Lies fools no one apart from those who want to be fooled. You're just the equivalent of a televangelist preaching to sheep about creationism.

I wonder what fossil fuel they were burning to cause the last climate shift, or maybe even the last ice age?

Seriously though, if we know climate change is coming--call it what you will--shouldn't we just figure out how to survive it? It has happened so many times in the past history of time, that I am positive it cannot be stopped. So why don't we concentrate on making sure we can survive the shift in climate, rather than bicker about burning coal?Maybe we could figure out where the hardest hit areas will be and begin shifting the population of the world away from those places? Or being sure about what the climate would look like if the continental ice shelf keeps melting? These are things that concern me, not how to stop mother nature from moving forward.

quote: There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

Did you read the article? I couldn't find a single sentiment in it that claimed that 'global cooling' was a result of human action. I did read that "meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend". But that's the only thing that even talks about causes. The rest is about observed temperatures.

I'm not denying that the climatologists have gotten things wrong in the past. But that's not unusual. In astronomy, only 60 years separated the Ptolemaic system from the Copernican system system, from the Tychonian system, from the Keplerian system. And then, finally, the agent of action (universal gravitation) in Kepler's model was worked out by Newton 80 years later. Each time we revise our models, we get closer to the truth. At least, generally, that's how it's worked in the past.

quote: I couldn't find a single sentiment in it that claimed that 'global cooling' was a result of human action.

That's because back then there was no special interest funding funneled to scientists to sway their theoretical opinions (read: Al Gore). And make no mistake, causal findings on global warming, global cooling, or global stagnation for that matter are just that: theoretical opinions.

Wow. Any excuse. Any excuse at all to put down Al Gore and accuse all climate science of being under the pale of someone's sinister motives. I'm not even going to waste breath trying to argue the politics of money on the issue of climate with you. You obviously aren't interested in other points of view. I'm interested in some other points of view - but not yours. So it would be a waste of time.

What's strangest of all is that your comment didn't address the fact that FIT was totally wrong in alleging that the article said global cooling was man made. If you want to know why your concerns about the legitimacy of climate science aren't taken seriously, it's because you can't construct a coherent rebuttal - much less a coherent argument for your case (whatever that may be).

Nonetheless, Al Gore made himself the lightning rod, in order to rebuild his career, and in a purely macheavellian move fired what is an credible and accomplished scientist for no other reason than he disagreed with him on global warming, and set himself upon this course. Does it have anything to do with hypothesis-driven science?

No, the real point is that, when you can't actually argue the data, you argue the metadata. When you can't argue climate science (because, let's face it, it's a highly specialized field that would take years to become familiar enough with to make your own evaluations of the data), you go after the political advocates of one stripe or another. Attacking Al Gore does nothing to discredit the science of climate change. (Discrediting the 'hockey stick' - that did something to discredit a specific climate model, and to a greater or lesser extent, the climate scientist behind it.)

Do you think that AGW has a monopoly on high-powered advocates? You think that the environmental impact studies funded by oil companies or coal companies or lumber companies or ... are more trustworthy? Do you think that the number of lobbying dollars thrown into the system by Al Gore & co. are more than big corporations?

I happen to think the climate science done by the majority of scientists is well intentioned, coming to the most accurate conclusions they can. But even if you think there's some secret motive among some of them to come up with the answer funders want, wouldn't that just be the Fox News of science? I mean, Fox News is a counterbalance to the 'liberal' bias of the rest of the major media outlets. In the same way, those climate scientists would just be a balancing force against all the forces arraigned against environmentalism.

Again, though, I think climate scientists (no matter who funds them) do the best science they can.

quote: Do you think that the number of lobbying dollars thrown into the system by Al Gore & co. are more than big corporations?

Without a doubt. Exxon used to give a few million to advocacy groups, but the environmentalists whined so hard they stopped. (fact: their books are public record).

How much does the other side give? Governments alone give several billion (not million) to fund AGW groups and scientists. Hell, in the EU now, you can't even ASK for a government research grant in earth science unless you explicitly endorse AGW (fact).

Private environmental groups also give tens of millions of dollars a year, much more by themselves than big oil ever did. There's also the money that big corporations who stand to MAKE money off GW fears (people like Gore's multi-billion dollar carbon trading company) pump into the system.

Global warming is big business now. Follow the money and you'll see where the stink is coming from.

Just catching up with all the comments but had to come back to the post ending "Again, though, I think climate scientists (no matter who funds them) do the best science they can."Have you ever been to a courthouse? Scientists are no different than prostitutes, they perform for the money only. Everyone has several different opinions and the one that gets expressed is the one that earns the most money.

A guy goes to college for 6-8 years and gets a PHD and has a $100,000 loan to pay off and 3 hungry kids at home! believes in anything that will pay the bills, and the only people hiring are the government global warming crowd. So you flip burgers at McDonalds or you sign on to the trend and apply your hard earned degree toward making the guy signing the checks happy. A simple answer to a complex equation. In this era of greed there are no morals, ethics, or honor, nor are there any leaders just followers of the crowd and then the nuts like us.

The concern with sea ice extent - land ice coverage, too - is partly with the reflective effect of the ice. All that white area tends not to absorb heat that well. So a reduction in the amount of ice area we have can have a destabilizing effect on climate (so say the climatologists).

What I'm curious about, Michael, is why you've given us this great report on the rebound of global sea ice extent, but then try to use it to rebuff concerns about the loss of the northern polar ice cap. While it is true that the worst-case concerns of some alarmists didn't come true (that is, we didn't lose all sea ice this past northern summer), the year was far from a 'substantial recovery'. It was the second-worst year on record. (The anomaly was .86 million square miles, versus the .93 million square mile anomaly of the year before - less than a 10% difference.)

What is more, you haven't even tried to differentiate each polar region separately. A quick glance at the NSIDC site shows that (although the data is a month old now), the Arctic ice extent is currently below last year's level, and a little more digging will show this November's average is below the November 1979 average level by roughly 600,000 square kilometers. So it is pretty clear that the current anomaly is instantaneously the same as 1979 because of a larger than average Antarctic ice shelf.(you'll find the current graph here - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html - and I know you know how to pull up historic monthly data on the NSIDC site)

The NSIDC data also shows that the Antarctic sea ice extent has remained pretty steady, when averaged since 1979. But the Arctic sea ice has been on a steady downward trend. (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/). So we can expect, if these trends continue, that this instantaneous correlation will quickly diverge, towards more sea ice loss.

And finally, this correlation means nearly nothing, especially to the numbers for the individual poles. For instance, last year, about this time, the anomaly was +1 million square km. That's about 1.5 million square kilometers more than the end of 1979 levels. But 2008 still ended up being the second worst summer on record for Arctic sea ice extent.

And yet, despite all of this, it is a pretty remarkable reduction in the anomaly over the past couple of months, eh? Especially when you consider that the Arctic isn't pulling its weight. Sea ice loss in the Antarctic region must be very slow this Austral spring/summer. That's what your story should have been about.

(Incidentally, we had a major anomaly upswing late in 2007, too - interesting that we've had such dramatic changes, due to slow Antarctic melting, two years in a row.)

No, No, FoolsGambit11 -- Remember that we have NO scientific data (experimental results) to support the myth of man-made global warming (MMGW). All we have are computer models.

If the computer models do not predict reality, they are false. You say that the "worst case scenarios of some alarmists didn't come true."

No, no, no, foolsgamit11. These were the computer models upon which the myth of man-made global warming are based. The fact that the computer models produce WRONG RESULTS mean that the computer models are invalidated.

The computer models are DEFECTIVE. Once we have gotten far enough down the road to actually TEST reality against the computer models, we discover that the results spit out by the computer models are total garbage. That means that nothing the computer models tell us can be believed.

We do have man-made computer models that don't work. But we do not have man-made global warming.

Wow, did you even read the article? The chart is comparing the end of 1979 to the end of 2008, not minimums to maximums. There isn't even a "summer minium" you idiot. In our summer time, Antarctic ice increases. One goes up as the other goes down.

As you said -- "its too late to avoid embarrasing yourself but you can redeem yourself with honesty". Take your own advice.

Well gumdrop, you got me ... I was thinking the ANOMALY (red line) was arctic only ... trying so hard to understand how the author was interpreting the chart that I missed the forest for the trees ...

BUT HEY, my statement stands. Comparing the ANOMALY (red line) at Sept/Oct 1979 (what is that? ... the "local low point" aka "minimum") to Nov/Dec 2008 (what is that? ... the "local high point" aka "maximum") ... If I interpret the author's verbiage "sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close" I believe that is what he is doing ... comparing the 1979 local minimum to the 2008 local maximum.

Choose your own words to define what the author is stating to be equal ... they are apples and oranges in my book ;-D

Now, I am no ice scientist, and have been looking for some discussion around the significance of total world ice to arctic and antarctic ice ... I suppose there is some difference which would be the basis for an argument that homogenizing them distorts and obfuscates a true interpretation. Perhaps you can bring that to the discussion -- where is the discussion around the combined global sea ice chart? http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_dail...

Any idea about the years 1950/55 ... seems like something made the ice-curve slope down... Or at least in those years happened probably something that modified the usual icetrend during seasons .. can find it in the graph on the Chapman's reply -- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/05063...

quote:Why don't we just all kill ourselves and save the planet for God's sake?

Clearly the lunatic left-wing fringe believes it would be far better for us to simply impoverish ourselves and all of our descendants, so that the enlightened socialist nations of the Third World can take our place as the economic and standard-of-living leaders of the world. We will continue to live a kind of 19th Century pre-industrial existence. We will buy as many Chinese, Indian and Brazilian imports as our Third World wages will allow.

I love how a bunch of bloggers sitting around in their mother's basement in their underwear are trying to way in on the fate of the universe.

C = 1.2 × 10 = 5.67 × 10 W m °K L = 2440 J g

Do any of you know what this means and how to solve for "L"?

If not then leave the science to scientists, they've been doing it for their entire lives and despite what you hear on drudgereport and wallstreetjournal are not part of some massive large-scale liberal conspiracy that encompasses 99% of major scientists from every science journal, university, and newspaper.

While, on the other hand, anyone who cannot solve for the above equation is by definition a biased, arm-chair global warming blogger that lives in their mother's basement.